Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: A discussion on firearms-related EOs ONLY (no political rants)

  1. #1

    A discussion on firearms-related EOs ONLY (no political rants)

    Heys Mods, kill this if you want.

    I feel that the EO's on firearms related topics are of substantial interest to all firearms owners, and should be available in general discussion with moderation of political views outside the topic.

    For example:

    1. discussing the impact the EO's will have, is legit, discussing our views of the person who wrote them is not.

    2. discussing mechanisms to combat EO's is legit, discussing the individual players is not.

    Just a thought, kill it if you like.

    Thanks.
    Last edited by Nephrology; 04-11-2021 at 12:39 AM. Reason: ...formatting

  2. #2
    I’m not sure how much strength there is to the “ghost gun” EO because federal law has very specific definitions of what is a firearm. A firearm, as defined by 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), is “(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device.” There are other definitions for specific statutes such as the NFA definition of firearm but that doesn’t really apply towards the “ghost gun” EO. The relevant portion is that the frame or receiver of a firearm is a firearm so it requires markings such as a manufacturer, location, serial number, etc. A receiver, as defined in 27 C.F.R. 478.11, is “That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.”

    Something like an unfinished lower or frame does not meet that definition because it can’t hold the necessary parts such as the firing mechanism in the case of an 80% AR lower. That’s why it doesn’t legally require a serial number. The ATF can reclassify the current crop of 80% lowers as close enough to a completed firearm receiver to be legally considered “readily converted” into one, but then the industry could make slightly less complete lowers and submit those for approval. I can’t really see how this EO can accomplish what the President wants without corresponding changes in the law defining things like firearms and receivers.

    The EO pertaining to pistol braces has much firmer ground to stand on, in my opinion. My guess is the ATF will republish the document from last year in which they listed “objective” standards for determining whether an AR-style pistol is actually an SBR because it’s intended to be fired from the shoulder. I’m guessing practically every one will be determined to be an SBR unless it doesn’t have a brace at all. I wonder if they’ll waive the tax stamp fee for registering them.
    My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.

  3. #3
    Modding this sack of shit BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Lehr View Post
    I feel that the EO's on firearms related topics are of substantial interest to all firearms owners, and should be available in general discussion with moderation of political views outside the topic.
    Yup, that's what's in the rules. Laws, proposals, etc. that affect gun owners are free to go in General Discussion as long as the conversation remains specific to the legislation. Anything ranging outside of that goes into the politics sub-forum. Failure to abide by that will see posts deleted without notice.

    See:

    *The sole exception to this is specific 2nd amendment politics. These threads must be narrow in scope, such as a specific legislation proposal, lawsuit filed, new law going into affect, etc. General "they are anti-gun" does not qualify for this exception. General complaining about a given candidate does not qualify. Specific and limited in scope.
    Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by DanM View Post
    I’m not sure how much strength there is to the “ghost gun” EO because federal law has very specific definitions of what is a firearm. A firearm, as defined by 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), is “(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device.” There are other definitions for specific statutes such as the NFA definition of firearm but that doesn’t really apply towards the “ghost gun” EO. The relevant portion is that the frame or receiver of a firearm is a firearm so it requires markings such as a manufacturer, location, serial number, etc. A receiver, as defined in 27 C.F.R. 478.11, is “That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.”

    Something like an unfinished lower or frame does not meet that definition because it can’t hold the necessary parts such as the firing mechanism in the case of an 80% AR lower. That’s why it doesn’t legally require a serial number. The ATF can reclassify the current crop of 80% lowers as close enough to a completed firearm receiver to be legally considered “readily converted” into one, but then the industry could make slightly less complete lowers and submit those for approval. I can’t really see how this EO can accomplish what the President wants without corresponding changes in the law defining things like firearms and receivers.

    The EO pertaining to pistol braces has much firmer ground to stand on, in my opinion. My guess is the ATF will republish the document from last year in which they listed “objective” standards for determining whether an AR-style pistol is actually an SBR because it’s intended to be fired from the shoulder. I’m guessing practically every one will be determined to be an SBR unless it doesn’t have a brace at all. I wonder if they’ll waive the tax stamp fee for registering them.

    My guess is they will hang their hat on the "readily be converted to". I'm not sure how they will make that work. I guess we will see what kind of mental gymnastics they will come up with.

    I also think the braces will be an easy one for them. I don't see any court not agreeing that a brace is just a work around for a stock.
    We could isolate Russia totally from the world and maybe they could apply for membership after 2000 years.

  5. #5
    Site Supporter TDA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    So do we like the odds on running out to buy a pistol braced "other firearm" on the theory that there will be a relatively easy process of getting it to whatever its new paperwork status is likely to be? I realize that's a highly speculative question, but it's got to be on everyone's mind, right?

  6. #6
    Who wants the bet the brace ban creates some innovative buffer tube protectors that just by chance serve another purpose?

  7. #7
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    @Dan Lehr

    Because what you propose is fine here in General Discussion - Would you like to repurpose this thread into what you propose or do you want to start a new thread? If so, I'll copy the text from my Biden Executive Action post in the Poli forum over minus the last bit of political commentary I added. I think it would provide some basic information as to the state of what we're seeing here.

  8. #8
    Site Supporter Hambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Behind the Photonic Curtain
    Quote Originally Posted by 5pins View Post
    I also think the braces will be an easy one for them. I don't see any court not agreeing that a brace is just a work around for a stock.
    Agreed. It's just been a matter of when, not if, this would get smacked down.


    Quote Originally Posted by TDA View Post
    So do we like the odds on running out to buy a pistol braced "other firearm" on the theory that there will be a relatively easy process of getting it to whatever its new paperwork status is likely to be? I realize that's a highly speculative question, but it's got to be on everyone's mind, right?
    If you mean take the brace off, pretty good. If you mean get an easy SBR out of the deal, I wouldn't bet on it.
    "Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA

  9. #9
    On the braces.... keeping in mind that the following is my personal opinion, I could see some of the original non adjustable braces on slick receiver extensions making the cut as a tool to allow disabled shooters to utilize a AR pistol but I think that anything with a folder or with adjustment built in will be eventually determined to be bad to go.... So pretty much everything from the blades onward....Not saying this is what should be, but in my mind I can see this being the dividing line that the ATF takes between what they determine is acceptable for disabled utilization vice crossing into NFA territory....

    The thing that is the most concerning to me is the ATF director nomination, I really hope that this guy is not confirmed as this will herald the return of the confrontational ATF inspections and the likely shuttering of many FFL's and businesses....No matter what you do the inspectors can always find violations in the paperwork and if they get told to go after the shops gain like they used to a lot of the shops will get ate up.... I could foresee an attempt to require more things to have to pass through the "gatekeepers" and then for them to try to reduce the number of gates so to speak....
    "So strong is this propensity of mankind, to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts." - James Madison, Federalist No 10

  10. #10
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Greater PDX, OR
    Quote Originally Posted by TDA View Post
    So do we like the odds on running out to buy a pistol braced "other firearm" on the theory that there will be a relatively easy process of getting it to whatever its new paperwork status is likely to be? I realize that's a highly speculative question, but it's got to be on everyone's mind, right?
    I wound up submitting a Form 1 yesterday. I've been meaning to do it for awhile, and I figured the current hoopla will likely extend NFA wait times. My thought was that it was better to get in now, than in a couple of months when rule changes may potentially take effect.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •